The
following statements in your letter contain inaccuracies which I have
highlighted in bold type and my comments are provided immediately below each
extract:

1.
‘You allege that my report contains significant falsehoods, evidence of unfair
treatment, misleading statements, defamatory statements and derogatory
comments. However, you do not specify
what these are.’

Comment

On
the contrary, my letters specified these concerns in considerable detail.

Since
my letters are in the public domain your falsehood in respect of these concerns
can easily be verified by any interested party.

2.
‘In your letter dated 13 September 2010 you take exception to the reference in
my report to you having written 82
letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police. During the course of my review
the police files received confirm that 82 letters were recorded as having been
sent by you to Strathclyde Police during the period 28 July 2001 to 23 January
2009. This is a matter of fact.’

Comment

Even
in this short extract it can be seen that you have unfairly labelled every
letter sent by me to Strathclyde Police as a complaint.

I
have copies of all my letters and I can categorically state that your assertion
about me having sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police in the
period 28 July 2001 to 23 January 2009 is absolutely false.

Over
these years I obtained much relevant new evidence from various sources under
the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998. The vast majority of my letters
simply presented these many new items of documentary evidence to Strathclyde
Police.

For
example, in May 2009 I obtained important new evidence from Audit Scotland. I
sent eight letters to Strathclyde Police in respect of this new evidence, none
of which was a letter of complaint at all.

Strathclyde
Police generally ignored my letters and this naturally led to me complaining
about that a very few times.

That
was generally the pattern of my communications with Strathclyde Police. I
obtained new evidence, presented it to Strathclyde Police, but heard absolutely
nothing.

Your
assertion that I sent 82 letters of complaint to Strathclyde Police in respect
of which a substantial amount of public money was wasted in police efforts to
respond to them is completely false.

However,
two rare responses relating to the alleged fraud in Scottish Enterprise were
obtained from Strathclyde Police in recent years in respect of new evidence,
one in 2008 which rejected all the evidence that I had obtained from several
sources. Strathclyde Police falsely pretended that there was nothing new.

The
other rare response from Strathclyde Police relating to the alleged fraud in Scottish
Enterprise was in 2010. This rejected all the evidence I had obtained from
Audit Scotland in May 2009, again falsely pretending that there was nothing
new.

In
any event even if the police did already know about any of the evidence I had
obtained, the original police report had omitted all of it. That was
unacceptable.

Failing
to pass on relevant evidence in the context of a criminal investigation is a
very serious matter, being an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

In
summary, I requested a review by the PCCS of Strathclyde Police’s handling of
only the two police complaints that I had raised following Strathclyde Police’s
formal rejections of all the new evidence I had presented.

Your
pretence that I raised 82 police complaints is absolutely false.

3.
‘Incidentally, this figure does not include those occasions when you sent the same letter to more than one
individual within Strathclyde Police.’

Comment

I
never sent any letters to more that one individual within Strathclyde Police.

This
is simply another wildly false accusation that can reasonably be regarded as
designed to try to undermine my credibility.

Since
it is untrue your disparaging assertion here is rather obviously just another
indication of your own disgraceful lack of integrity and your overt bias
against me.

4.
‘This same letter also raises concerns that the application form submitted to
my office only asked for two "formal complaints" to be reviewed and
that my review contained 12 complaints.’

‘As
explained in my report, the complaints
reviewed were identified from the contents of your application form, the
correspondence received from you and the information obtained from Strathclyde
Police.’

Comment

Firstly,
I sent two application forms, not one.

Contrary
to your statement in this extract, the complaints reviewed in your report bear
very little resemblance to the detailed contents of my requests on the PCCS application
forms, which are replicated below:

17
November 2008

’WHY STRATHCLYDE POLICE DID NOT ASKANOTHER FORCE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED
FAILURES, IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.’

‘STRATHCLYDE POLICE’S STATEMENT THAT ALL THE
EVIDENTIAL FACTORS I IDENTIFIED WERE KNOWN TO THE POLICE IN 1994’

21 June
2010

‘A DELAY OF 10 MONTHS IN RESPONDING TO MY
LETTERS’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 1993
INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2004
INVESTIGATION’

‘FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE 2008
INVESTIGATION’

5.
‘On 3 June 2010 your Case Officer wrote
to you confirming ten complaints that had been identified. This letter
concluded with a paragraph stating:’

‘ "If you do not agree with any of these
grounds of complaint, or you believe we should
consider additional or fewer grounds, please let me know as soon as
possible." ‘

‘On
5 June 2010 you responded to this letter stating:’

‘ "I am pleased that you have provided a
summary of what you have identified as my grounds of complaint." ‘

Comment

In
reality the Case Officer wrote to me confirming ten ‘heads of complaint’ that
had been identified, not ten police ‘complaints’.

Your
obvious misrepresentation of heads of complaint, falsely pretending that these
are separate police complaints, is just another indication of your own
questionable logic and woolly thinking.

Separately,
a glaring inconsistency about the number of police complaints I had supposedly
sent to Strathclyde Police according to your report is plainly revealed in this
extract.

You
stated that I had sent 82 complaints to Strathclyde Police but then you have
identified only 12 complaints in your report. How can this be? There is a
considerable discrepancy here that merits an explanation.

In
truth, your persistence in the falsehood about me having sent 82 complaints to
Strathclyde Police, knowing that it is false, is malicious and actionable.

In
these circumstances I have grounds for a substantial claim against you
personally for defamation. The element of malice in your conduct would preclude
any defence of qualified privilege.

6.
‘On 31 August 2010 your Case Officer
wrote to you again informing you that two additional complaints under case
reference 0119/10 would be included in my review.’

‘In
this letter you were asked to contact your Case Officer within seven days if
you wished to discuss the matter. No correspondence was received from you
raising any concerns about these additional heads of complaint. Accordingly, my
complaint handling review was published addressing
each of the complaints that had been identified and outlined to you. If you
had concerns about the heads of complaint that had been identified then the
appropriate time to raise these concerns was in

response
to the correspondence from your Case Officer. It is regrettable that you chose
not to do so.’

Comment

Your
use of the terms ‘heads of complaint’ and ‘complaints’ as if these are
interchangeable terms is fundamentally misleading.

In
reality the Case Officer wrote to me informing me that two additional ‘heads of
complaint’ would be included in your review, not two additional police ‘complaints’.

For
the sake of accuracy, these two identified heads of complaint related to only
one of the two police complaints that I had submitted to the PCCS for review.

7.
‘In your letters of 10 and 13 September 2010 you request that my office stops
processing inaccurate personal information about you. However, you do not explain what personal data it is that you believe
to be inaccurate. Notwithstanding this, I note that we have dealt with a
similar request from you in the past and that we have provided you with details
of the proper channel for you to pursue our handling of the matter.’

Comment

On
the contrary, my letters specified the inaccuracies in considerable detail.

Since
my letters are in the public domain your falsehood in respect of this point can
easily be verified by any interested party.

8.
‘I fully recognise that you are
disappointed with my consideration of your complaints and the conclusions which
I have reached. However, it is my view that your complaints have been reviewed in accordance with my statutory role.
It is open to you to seek Judicial Review of my decision and you may wish to
seek legal advice on the matter.’

Comment

On
the contrary I am quite pleased because your report is of such low quality and
can so easily be exposed as defective in almost every respect imaginable that it
supports the many assertions contained in my blog about the disgraceful state
of the Scottish justice system.

The PCCS appears to be fundamentally
unfit for purpose and an obstacle to justice under your misdirection.

Consequently, the public should realise
much sooner than otherwise would have been the case that taxpayers’ money
should not be wasted on such an ineffective, inept, dishonest and biased outfit.

The
two complaints that I submitted in the applications I sent to the PCCS have in
reality not been reviewed in accordance with your statutory role. You have
blatantly disregarded your statutory duties and responsibilities, as detailed
in my letters, which is a matter of very grave concern.

In view of the very serious nature of the
above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter
to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms
Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to
Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.

This is clearly a matter of public interest
that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has
therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these
circumstances.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.